(Similar guidelines
were adopted by the State Mining and
Geology Board for advisory purposes in
1996.)

These guidelines
provide general guidance for geologists
who review consultants geologic reports
on behalf of agencies having approval
authority over specific developments.
These general guidelines are modified
from an article titled, "Geologic Review
Process" by Hart and Williams (1978).

The geologic review
is a critical part of the evaluation
process of a proposed development. It is
the responsibility of the reviewer to
assure that each geologic investigation,
and the resulting report, adequately
addresses the geologic conditions that
exist at a given site. In addition to
geologic reports for tentative tracts
and site development, a reviewer
evaluates Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs),
Seismic Safety and Public Safety
Elements of General Plans, Reclamation
Plans, as-graded geologic reports, and
final, as-built geologic maps and
reports. In a sense, the geologic
reviewer enforces existing laws, agency
policies, and regulations to assure that
significant geologic factors (hazards,
mineral and water resources, geologic
processes) are properly considered, and
potential problems are mitigated prior
to project development. Generally, the
reviewer acts at the discretion or
request of, and on behalf of a governing
agency -- city, county, regional, state,
federal -- not only to protect the
governments interest but also to
protect the interest of the community at
large. Examples of the review process in
a state agency are described by Stewart
and others (1976). Review at the local
level has been discussed by Leighton
(1975), Berkland (1992), Larson (1992),
and others. Grading codes, inspections,
and the review process are discussed in
detail by Scullin (1983). Nelson and
Christenson (1992) specifically discuss
review guidelines for reports on surface
faulting.

The Reviewer

Qualifications

In order to make
appropriate evaluations of geologic
reports, the reviewer should be an
experienced geologist familiar with the
investigative methods employed and the
techniques available to the profession.
Even so, the reviewer must know his or
her limitations, and at times ask for
opinions of others more qualified in
specialty fields (e.g., geophysics,
mineral exploitation and economics,
ground water, foundation and seismic
engineering, seismology). In California,
the reviewer must be licensed by the
State Board of Registration for
Geologists and Geophysicists in order to
practice (Wolfe, 1975). The Board also
certifies engineering geologists and
hydrogeologists, and licenses
geophysicists. Local and regional
agencies may have additional
requirements.

The reviewer must
have the courage of his or her
convictions and should not approve
reports if an inadequate investigation
has been conducted. Like any review
process, there is a certain
"give-and-take" involved between the
reviewer and investigator. If there is
clear evidence of incompetence or
misrepresentation in a report, this fact
should be reported to reviewing agency
or licensing board. California Civil
Code Section 47 provides an immunity for
statements made "in the initiation or
course of any other proceedings
authorized by law." Courts have
interpreted this section as providing
immunity to letters of complaint written
to provide a public agency or board,
including licensing boards, with
information that the public board or
agency may want to investigate (King v.
Borges, 28 Cal. App. 3d 27 [1972]; and
Brody v. Montalbano, 87 Cal. App. 3d 725
[1978]). Clearly, the reviewer needs to
have the support of his or her agency in
order to carry out these duties.

The reviewer should
bear in mind that some geologic
investigators are not accomplished
writers, and almost all are working with
restricted budgets. Also, the reviewer
may be limited by his or her agencys
policies, procedures, and fee
structures. Thus, while a reviewer
should demand that certain standards be
met, he or she should avoid running
rough-shod over the investigator. The
mark of a good reviewer is the ability
to sort out the important from the
insignificant and to make constructive
comments and recommendations.

A reviewer may be
employed full time by the reviewing
agency or part-time as a consultant.
Also, one reviewing agency (such as a
city) may contract with another agency
(such as a county) to perform geologic
reviews. The best reviews generally are
performed by experienced reviewers.
Thus, the use of multiple, part-time
reviewers by a given agency tends to
prevent development of consistently
high-quality and efficient reviews. One
of the reasons for this is that
different reviewers have different
standards, which results in inconsistent
treatment of development projects. The
primary purpose of the review procedure
should always be kept in mind -- namely,
to assure the adequacy of geologic
investigations.

Other Review
Functions

Aside from his or her
duties as a reviewer, the reviewing
geologist also must interpret the
geologic data reported to other agency
personnel who regulate development
(e.g., planners, engineers, inspectors).
Also, the reviewing geologist sometimes
is called upon to make investigations
for his or her own agency. This is
common where a city or county employs
only one geologist. In fact, some
reviewers routinely divide their
activities between reviewing the reports
of others and performing one or several
other tasks for the employing agency
(such as advising other agency staff and
boards on geologic matters; making
public presentations) (Leighton, 1975).

Conflict of
Interest

In cases where a
reviewing geologist must also perform
geologic investigations, he or she
should never be placed in the position
of reviewing his or her own report, for
that is no review at all. A different
type of conflict commonly exists in a
jurisdiction where the geologic review
is performed by a consulting geologist
who also is practicing commercially
(performing geologic investigations)
within the same jurisdictional area.
Such situations should be avoided, if at
all possible.

Geologic Review

The Report

The critical item in
evaluating specific site investigations
for adequacy is the resulting geologic
report. A report that is incomplete or
poorly written cannot be evaluated and
should not be approved. As an
expediency, some reviewers do accept
inadequate or incomplete reports because
of their personal knowledge of the site.
However, unless good reasons can be
provided in writing, it is recommended
that a report not be accepted until it
presents the pertinent facts correctly
and completely.

The conclusions
presented in the report regarding the
geologic hazards or problems must be
separate from and supported by the
investigative data. An indication
regarding the level of confidence in the
conclusions should be provided.
Recommendations based on the conclusions
should be made to mitigate those
geology-related problems which would
have an impact on the proposed
development. Recommendations also should
be made concerning the need for
additional geologic investigations.

Report
Guidelines and Standards

An investigating
geologist may save a great deal of time
(and the clients money), and avoid
misunderstandings, if he or she contacts
the reviewing geologist at the
initiation of the investigation. The
reviewer should not only be familiar
with the local geology and sources of
information, he or she also should be
able to provide specific guidelines for
investigative reports and procedures to
be followed. Guidelines and checklists
for geologic or geotechnical reports
have been prepared by a number of
reviewing agencies and are available to
assist the reviewer in his or her
evaluation of reports (e.g., DMG Notes
42, 44, 46, 48, and 49). A reviewer also
may wish to prepare his or her own
guidelines or checklists for specific
types of reviews.

If a reviewer has
questions about an investigation, these
questions must be communicated in
writing to the investigator for
response. After the reviewer is
satisfied that the investigation and
resulting conclusions are adequate, this
should be clearly indicated in writing
to the reviewing agency so that the
proposed development application may be
processed promptly. The last and one of
the more important responsibilities of
the reviewer should be implementation of
requirements assuring report
recommendations are incorporated and
appropriate consultant inspections are
made.

The biggest problem
the reviewer faces is the identification
of standards. These questions must be
asked: "Are the methods of investigation
appropriate for a given site?" and "Was
the investigation conducted according to
existing standards of practice?" Answers
to these questions lie in the report
being reviewed. For example, a reported
landslide should be portrayed on a
geologic map of the site. The conclusion
that a hazard is absent, where
previously reported or suspected, should
be documented by stating which
investigative steps were taken and
precisely what was seen. The reviewer
must evaluate each investigative step
according to existing standards. It
should be recognized that existing
standards of practice generally set
minimum requirements (Keaton, 1993).
Often the reviewer is forced to clarify
the standards, or even introduce new
ones, for a specific purpose.

Depth
(Intensity) of Review

The depth of the
review is determined primarily by the
need to assure that an investigation and
resulting conclusions are adequate, but
too often the depth of review is
controlled by the time and funds
available. A report on a subdivision
(e.g., for and EIR or preliminary
report) may be simply evaluated against
a checklist to make certain it is
complete and well-documented.
Additionally, the reviewer may wish to
check cited references or other sources
of data, such as aerial photographs and
unpublished records.

Reviewers also may
inspect the development site and examine
excavations and borehole samples.
Ideally, a field visit may not be
necessary if the report is complete and
well-documented. However, field
inspections are of value, and generally
are necessary to determine if field data
are reported accurately and completely.
Also, if the reviewer is not familiar
with the general site conditions, a
brief field visit provides perspective
and a visual check on the reported
conditions. Whether or not on-site
reviews are made, it is important to
note that the geologic review process is
not intended to replace routine grading
inspections that may be required by the
reviewing agency to assure performance
according to an approved development
plan.

Review Records

For each report and
development project reviewed, a clear,
concise, and logical written record
should be developed. This review
record may be as detailed as is
necessary, depending upon the
complexity of the project, the
geology, and the quality and
completeness of the reports submitted.
At a minimum, the record should:

Include a clear
statement of the requirements to be
met by the parties involved, data
required, and the plan, phase,
project, or report being considered;

Contain summaries
of the reviewers field observations,
associated literature and aerial
photographic review, and oral
communications with the applicant and
the consultant;

Contain copies of
any pertinent written correspondence;
and

Include the
reviewers name and license number(s),
with expiration dates.

The report, plans,
and review record should be kept in
perpetuity to document that compliance
with local requirements was achieved and
for reference during future development,
remodeling, or rebuilding. Such records
can also be a valuable resource for
land-use planning and real-estate
disclosure.

Appeals

In cases where the
reviewer is not able to approve a
geologic report, or can accept it only
on a conditional basis, the developer
may wish to appeal the review decision
or recommendations. However, every
effort should be made to resolve
problems informally prior to making a
formal appeal. An appeal should be
handled through existing local
procedures (such as a hearing by a
County Board of Supervisors or a City
Council) or by a specially appointed
Technical Appeals and Review Panel
comprised of geoscientists, engineers,
and other appropriate professionals.
Adequate notice should be given to allow
time for both sides to prepare their
cases. After an appropriate hearing, the
appeals decision should be in writing as
part of the permanent record.

Another way to remedy
conflicts between the investigator and
the reviewer is by means of a third
party review. Such a review can take
different paths ranging from the review
of existing reports to in-depth field
investigations. Third party reviews are
usually done by consultants not normally
associated with the reviewing/permitting
agency.